The U.S. Didn’t “Prevail” in Iraq, and Syria’s War Is a Calamity for Iran

Vance Serchuk confirms that we can ignore his analysis of Iran’s role in Syria:

Of course, there is another aspect of the Iraq war the Obama administration might consider before wishing a similar experience on Iran: namely that, in the end, the United States prevailed [bold mine-DL].

On the contrary, the Iraq war was the greatest strategic blunder the U.S. has made since Vietnam. There would have been no insurgency, much less any “al-Qaeda-linked insurgency” if there had been no war, and there would have been no way for Iranian-backed militias to operate in Iraq if it had not been for the invasion. The U.S. was eventually able to extricate itself from this debacle, but the U.S. and its allies didn’t prevail. If Serchuk truly believes that the U.S. won in Iraq, we have to wonder how divorced from reality the rest of his analysis is.

Suppose that there was a U.S. client state suffering from a large internal rebellion, and the U.S. sent weapons, funds, other proxy forces, and military advisers to aid the client government to keep it from being overthrown. Then imagine that almost every other major regional government was supporting the rebellion to one degree or another with the express purpose of defeating the U.S. client. Wouldn’t everyone understand that the client state was becoming a drain on the U.S. and that the conflict was swallowing up resources that could be used elsewhere? Even if the conflict in Syria doesn’t “exhaust” Iran, it imposes more costs on Iran simply to prop up a client whose value to Tehran is diminishing daily.

It can’t be considered a “win” for Iran to have to keep a weakened client in power by expending its own resources and damaging its reputation throughout the region. Syrian regime forces may be gaining ground, but that is only after they had lost control of at least half the country, and it is unlikely that they will be able to retake all of what they have lost. The rebellion against Assad and his regime has already been a calamity for Iran, and even if it keeps Assad in power for a few more years it will have done so by frittering away resources and influence that it won’t easily replace.

“The United States did prevail in that it ended the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Indeed. The United States government is an accomplished expert in toppling foreign governments via intervention. I’m trying to recall where that hasn’t made things worse for the average person in those countries than it was before, or how it ever benefited the average American who paid and sometimes died for it.

“Calamity” is definitely more than a bit much. Most likely, both Iraq and Syria will sooner or later be partitioned on terms favorable to Iran’s real or imagined allies. To suggest that it’s expending so many resources is to suggest this is analogous to the Soviets in Afghanistan, which is preposterous.

The problem with all those Vance Serchuks of the world is that they are….lawyers from Ivy League’s vast pool of ignoramuses (nothing personal against lawyers). They get their degrees in all kinds of “security” studies while having no clue, whatsoever, what wars are, how they are prosecuted and what are strategic, operational (well, this one is a wowser) and tactical issues. Hell, most of them can not give a normal definition of a strategy (because they have no clue what is that) or describe how to achieve ANY objective, not to speak about the political one. The academic level of these kind (well, AEI is a good example–they study the history of some of many of parallel universes) of guys is…hm….pathetic. As for the experiences–I would rather abstain from describing them.

The US did prevail in Iraq, depending on whose view you adhere to. For people who profited immensely off the blood, tears, and deaths of US and Iraqi people, you’ve done immensely well these past 10+ years.

Look at the history books. Going back in history to wars like Vietname, the Korean War, WWII, WWI, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, the Mexican War, etc. you’ll find the governing elite of the country (e.g. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, etc.) are more than happy to send your sons and daughters off to war since doing so results in maximizing their short-term profits.

Shoot, there were even having problems like this back in Jesus’ day. Didn’t the man say something along the lines that the love of money is the root of all evil?

It does look like the Syria war is really bad for Iran, and I think material resources are the least of it. But isn’t that one more reason supporting the realist case for supporting the weaker side in the Syria war (covertly, of course) in the hope of prolonging it?

The non-interventionist answer to that would presumably be that the US doesn’t have any vital interests in the region that would justify such a thing, even interests regarding Iran. But the realist rejoinder would be that, given the reality today (not in some perfect world), the US does have interests there, vital or not. And those interests are enough to justify (covert) US intervention in Syria, just as Iran and Russia believe that their own interests justify their own intervention.

I’m don’t really support such a realist approach, but Daniel’s point in this article does seem to be an argument for realist intervention as opposed to non-intervention.

Serchuk’s piece reads like he had a brainwave about how insightful it would be to argue that “Hey Syria is to Iran just like Iraq was to the USA”, then floundered around trying to make parallels that simply don’t exist, and lacked the common sense to delete that bit and write something else.

Sadly, contemporary commentary on just about anything is riddled with too-clever-by-half bits of nonsense, as the seething mob of pundit wannabes struggle to find a way to stand out from the crowd. Present company always excepted, of course 🙂

Seriously, what is America’s interest in the Syrian civil war, “realist” or otherwise?

Because of laws that have been on the books since 2004, we don’t have any kind of commercial relationship with Syria. However Syria’s civil war ends, all sectors of its economy will be depressed from the deaths, property damage and dearth of external investment, so we can’t tell ourselves that it’s just a matter of winning and turning on the oil faucet. Or at least we probably shouldn’t, given how that proposition turned out for our “self-financing” occupation of Iraq.

Regardless of how this war plays out, I can’t see any future Syrian government willing to risk its legitimacy supporting peace with (as opposed to a cessation of hostilities pending the next good opportunity to destroy) Israel. Any government representative of the Syrian population as a whole will be ambivalent or hostile towards us and our aims in the region.

So, no money and no potential allies of any value. Am I missing something here?

Thank you, Mr. Larison, for bringing attention to this man’s insistence on claiming US “victory” in Iraq.

How is this nonsense being published in the The Washington Post, an ostensibly great newspaper? How are these people still welcome in polite company? How is it that they still attend fancy-schmancy dinner parties and sojourn from one DC sinecure to another?

“And how was it in our vital national DEFENSE interest to support or oppose Hussein or any other particular government in Iraq??”

While it was not widely remarked at the time, the main driving force behind the American invasion of Iraq was Saddam’s continual provocations. The US had been maneuvered by its European “Allies” into a position where it bore the costs of a wearying regime of sanctions, while they profited by violating those sanctions. Everyone appears to have forgotten how Saddam would send a few tanks to the Kuwait border, and half the US Fleet would hasten halfway around the globe to glare sternly, while the Euros laughed themselves sick, all the way to the bank.

War was not the only way out of that predicament, but to discuss the outcome of that war as if the alternative were evident, let alone evidently better, is disingenuous at best. Would our position be better if we were still maintaining a no-fly zone over Kurdistan?

There is an established story in certain ‘conservative’ circles that the U.S. did in fact ‘prevail’ in Iraq. I invite anyone who is curious to read Victor Davis Hanson’s ‘the Savior Generals’ (hint: one of them is named Petraeus). As of course there has long been in a legend that the War in VietNam was successful until a liberal cabol in congress surrendered on behalf of the brave but out-gunned ARVN.
I think we are very near a ‘DolchstoBlegende’ regarding President Obama’s winding down of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.